Nordstrom will give client benefit as an approach to constructing the brand of an item and is the way for the client to maintain loyalty to Nordstrom. Alluding to marking, client benefit is frequently the last component and regularly the most ignored. This is a major oversight - and a major open door missed. Utilize client administration to fortify your image is a basic way, making organizations to end up plainly extraordinary, and increment mark dedication.
Answer:
- <u><em>Option B. $1,025 a month for 10 years.</em></u>
Explanation:
Calculate the present value of each option:
Formula:
![PV=C\times \bigg[\dfrac{1}{r}-\dfrac{1}{r(1+r)^t}\bigg]](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=PV%3DC%5Ctimes%20%5Cbigg%5B%5Cdfrac%7B1%7D%7Br%7D-%5Cdfrac%7B1%7D%7Br%281%2Br%29%5Et%7D%5Cbigg%5D)
Where:
- PV is the present value of the constant monthly payments
- r is the monthly rate
- t is the number of moths
<u>1. Option A will provide $1,500 a month for 6 years. </u>
![PV=$\ 1,500\times \bigg[\dfrac{1}{(0.005\overline 6}-\dfrac{1}{0.005\overline 6(1+0.005\overline 6)^{(6\times12)}}\bigg]](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=PV%3D%24%5C%201%2C500%5Ctimes%20%5Cbigg%5B%5Cdfrac%7B1%7D%7B%280.005%5Coverline%206%7D-%5Cdfrac%7B1%7D%7B0.005%5Coverline%206%281%2B0.005%5Coverline%206%29%5E%7B%286%5Ctimes12%29%7D%7D%5Cbigg%5D)
<u>2. Option B will pay $1,025 a month for 10 years. </u>
![PV=$\ 1,025\times \bigg[\dfrac{1}{(0.005\overline 6}-\dfrac{1}{0.005\overline 6(1+0.005\overline 6)^{(10\times12)}}\bigg]](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=PV%3D%24%5C%201%2C025%5Ctimes%20%5Cbigg%5B%5Cdfrac%7B1%7D%7B%280.005%5Coverline%206%7D-%5Cdfrac%7B1%7D%7B0.005%5Coverline%206%281%2B0.005%5Coverline%206%29%5E%7B%2810%5Ctimes12%29%7D%7D%5Cbigg%5D)
<u>3. Option C offers $85,000 as a lump sum payment today. </u>
<u></u>
<h2 /><h2> Conclusion:</h2>
The present value of the<em> option B, $1,025 a month for 10 years</em>, has a the greatest present value, thus since he is only concerned with the <em>financial aspects of the offier</em>, this is the one he should select.
Explanation:
The long-running debate between the ‘rational design’ and ‘emergent process’ schools of strategy formation has involved caricatures of firms' strategic planning processes, but little empirical evidence of whether and how companies plan. Despite the presumption that environmental turbulence renders conventional strategic planning all but impossible, the evidence from the corporate sector suggests that reports of the demise of strategic planning are greatly exaggerated. The goal of this paper is to fill this empirical gap by describing the characteristics of the strategic planning systems of multinational, multibusiness companies faced with volatile, unpredictable business environments. In-depth case studies of the planning systems of eight of the world's largest oil companies identified fundamental changes in the nature and role of strategic planning since the end of the 1970s. The findings point to a possible reconciliation of ‘design’ and ‘process’ approaches to strategy formulation. The study pointed to a process of planned emergence in which strategic planning systems provided a mechanism for coordinating decentralized strategy formulation within a structure of demanding performance targets and clear corporate guidelines. The study shows that these planning systems fostered adaptation and responsiveness, but showed limited innovation and analytical sophistication
Because how do you know whether or not to accept the position. How do you know if it’s the right job for you? Or, what if you have to choose between two appealing offers? Will you feel comfortable with the people you work with?
